Yes Kevin, this is understood - but valid observation from Nick. Can you pls answer my question first? Very curious.
Arvinder > Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to > trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for > the same reason. I'm going to stop for a while. > > - Kevin > > > On May 15, 2014, at 12:42 PM, "Nick B" > <n...@pelagiris.org<mailto:n...@pelagiris.org>> wrote: > > Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers". > Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then you > throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument. > Nick > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin > <kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com<mailto:kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com>> > wrote: > Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep > ahead of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring > broadband), Akamai, Ookla, etc > > What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial > transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber > customers). Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of > capacity, and some of the largest Internet companies as customers. > > - Kevin > > 215-313-1083<tel:215-313-1083> > >> On May 15, 2014, at 10:19 AM, "Owen DeLong" >> <o...@delong.com<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: >> >> Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate >> >> Owen >> >>> On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin >>> <kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com<mailto:kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite" >>> >>> - Kevin >>> >>> 215-313-1083<tel:215-313-1083> >>> >>>> On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" >>>> <o...@delong.com<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new >>>> ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in >>>> upgrades >>>> or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert >>>> <h...@slabnet.com<mailto:h...@slabnet.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart >>>>>>> competition any way they can. >>>>> No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources >>>>> of >>>>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets >>>>>> and >>>>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). >>>>> >>>>> Sure they are (seeking new sources of revenue). They're not >>>>> necessarily >>>>> creating new products or services, i.e. actually adding any value, >>>>> but they >>>>> are finding ways to extract additional revenue from the same pipes, >>>>> e.g. >>>>> through paid peering with content providers. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not endorsing this; just pointing out that you two are actually >>>>> in >>>>> agreement here. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Hugo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM, >>>>>>> <char...@thefnf.org<mailto:char...@thefnf.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. >>>>>>> *They see >>>>>>>> no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> profit without it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is the issue of control over the market. But also the >>>>>>> pressure >>>>>>> from shareholders for continued growth. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. That is true. Except that it's not. >>>>>> >>>>>> How do service providers grow? Let's explore that: >>>>>> >>>>>> What is growth for a transit provider? >>>>>> >>>>>> More (new) access network(s) (connections). >>>>>> More bandwidth across backbone pipes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What is growth for access network? >>>>>> More subscribers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except that the incumbent carriers have shown they have no interest >>>>>> in >>>>>> providing decent bandwidth to anywhere but the most profitable rate >>>>>> centers. I'd say about 2/3 of the USA is served with quite terrible >>>>>> access. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with the internet is that while it had promises of wild >>>>>>> growth in the 90s and 00s, once penetration reaches a certain >>>>>>> level, >>>>>>> growth stabilizes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Penetration is ABYSMAL sir. Huge swaths of underserved americans >>>>>> exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> When you combine this with threath to large incumbents's media and >>>>>>> media >>>>>>> distribution endeavours by the likes of Netflix (and cat videos on >>>>>>> Youtube), large incumbents start thinking about how they will be >>>>>>> able to >>>>>>> continue to grow revenus/profits when customers will shift spending >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> vspecialty channels/cableTV to Netflix and customer growth will not >>>>>>> compensate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except they aren't. Even in the most profitable rate centers, >>>>>> they've >>>>>> declined to really invest in the networks. They aren't a real >>>>>> business. You >>>>>> have to remember that. They have regulatory capture, natural/defacto >>>>>> monopoly etc etc. They don't operate in the real world of >>>>>> risk/reward/profit/loss/uncertainty like any other real business has >>>>>> to. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart >>>>>>> competition any way they can. >>>>>> >>>>>> No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources >>>>>> of >>>>>> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets >>>>>> and >>>>>> aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). >>>>>> They did >>>>>> a bit of an advertising campaign of "smart home" offerings, but that >>>>>> seems >>>>>> to have never grown beyond a pilot. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The current trend is to "if you can't fight them, jon them" where >>>>>>> cablecos start to include the Netflix app into their proprietary >>>>>>> set-top >>>>>>> boxes. The idea is that you at least make the customer continue to >>>>>>> use >>>>>>> your box and your remote control which makes it easier for them to >>>>>>> switch between netflix and legacy TV. >>>>>> True. I don't know why one of the cablecos hasn't licensed roku, >>>>>> added >>>>>> cable card and made that available as a "hip/cool" set top box >>>>>> offering and >>>>>> charge another 10.00 a month on top of the standard dvr rental. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would be interesting to see if those cable companies that are >>>>>> agreeing >>>>>>> to add the Netflix app onto their proprietary STBs also play >>>>>>> peering >>>>>>> capacity games to degrade the service or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> So how is the content delivered? Is it over the internet? Or is it >>>>>> over >>>>>> the cable plant, from cable headends? >> > >